Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Interesting way of expressing it to be sure, but relitively accurate none the less..
Not at all. ALAC is not NCUC-lite. It is not a haven for policy wonks who spend their waking hours reading obtuse legal verbiage. Indeed, many of the current ALSs do not have ICANN issues -- or even Internet governance -- as primary areas of focus. This is as is should be, as the public at large does not have such issues at the top of its priority lists either. Folks like Danny -- and other NCUC members -- have the time, the initiative, and the policy-specific analytic skill to pore through it all, and produce policy opinions whether ICANN asks for them or not. At-Large is not so fortunate -- its ALSs generally have none of those traits in substantial quantity, which is what IMO distinguishes us from NCUC. So why are we here? Generally, because we were invited -- sometimes nearly begged -- to become involved, indeed BECAUSE of our lack of primary focus on Internet issues. In this regard I think of At-Large as a massive focus group, and as such the tactics of extracting of useful policy advice are far different than they are for other constituencies which generally are already defined by the nature of their self-interested motivation. The Summit is an attempt at this different set of tactics, of multi-directional education in which the "advisors" have as much to learn as they have to teach. Danny may be surprised to learn that many ALSs indeed have policy priorities; the fact that they're not the same as his priorities, or that they're not expressed as well as he can express them, or that there's a diversity of views, is not a reason to belittle their need for more active support. Garbage in, garbage out, and all that. We're lucky to have Danny in NARALO because he offers a good historical perspective and has a sharp eye in this field. Almost by definition, the ALSs being brought in -- with the possible exception of Internet Society branches -- don't have that, so it's reasonable to request help so that we have have enough grounding to give ICANN the "public" feedback it wants. It's simply unfair to complain that the Summit, as a policy-making tool, is unnecessary simply because not every ALS has its own Danny. If ICANN really wants At-Large to offer even a taste of real public sentiment, that just won't happen, and the Summit is justifiable. - Evan